Two new ServCollab articles are worth checking out:
(1) Healing the digital divide with digital inclusion: Enabling human capabilities. (Fisk et al, 2022).
(2) Enabling a service thinking mindset: Practices for the global service ecosystem. (Alkire et al, 2022).
Both papers got me thinking even more deeply about learning to invest systematically and wisely in service system innovations that improve win-win interaction and change processes. When I learn of new and improved practices based on new concepts – I naturally ask: “Who is a role model for those practices?” Which responsible actors (e.g., people, businesses, universities, cities, nations, etc. – AKA service system entities) are doing the best job of learning to invest in service inclusion/digital inclusion and service thinking. Those would be role models to try to copy practices from and emulate (change/transform towards via social learning).
The first paper evolves a service inclusion framework to better conceptualize digital inclusion: “Using a strengths-based approach, we upframe two of the four pillars. That is, we replace the second “offering choice” pillar with “enabling choices” and the third “relieving suffering” pillar with “nurturing healing.” With this strengths-based terminology, we seek to shift the focus from reiterating the forces that drive the digital divide to exploring possible methods to cocreate value through digital inclusion. Interactions based on inclusive service practices can foster happiness.”
The second paper builds on and extends Raworth’s doughnut economics model to better conceptualize service thinking: “Service Thinking is based on a just, mutualistic, human-centered mindset, which is enabled by five practices of Service Thinking derived from a literature review: service empathy, service inclusion, service respect, service courage and service integrity.”
See my earlier blog post on ServCollab as well here.
References
BiblioF2022 Fisk PR, Gallan AS, Joubert AM, Beekhuyzen J, Cheung L, Russell-Bennett R (2022) Healing the Digital Divide With Digital Inclusion: Enabling Human Capabilities. Journal of Service Research. Via Ray_Fisk. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/109467052211401 Quotes: “Abstract: The “digital divide” refers to societal-level inequalities of digital access, capabilities, and outcomes. To explore how the digital divide affects customers experiencing vulnerability, service interactions in essential service settings (health care, education, and social services) were empirically investigated and practices service system members might adopt to address vulnerability were identified. This research upframes the pillars of service inclusion framework to define human capabilities that result from service inclusion practices. Three research topics were addressed: how the digital divide affects vulnerability (RQ1), how the digital divide can be addressed through service inclusion practices (RQ2), and how service inclusion practices enable human capabilities for digital inclusion (RQ3). The findings illuminate: (1) how service employees can engage in service inclusion practices to address the digital divide (by letting go of rules and perspectives, sharing control, providing services beyond job scope, and facilitating social connections), and (2) how these service inclusion practices build human capabilities for digital inclusion (by building basic skills and capabilities for meaningful outcomes through role modeling, coaching, customer-to-customer mentoring, and expanding net- works). Contributions include conceptual models of service inclusion practices and fostering digital inclusion that specify a new meso level service organization pathway for healing the digital divide. Keywords: digital divide, digital inclusion, service inclusion, human capabilities, vulnerability, service practices”; “Using a strengths-based approach, we upframe two of the four pillars. That is, we replace the second “offering choice” pillar with “enabling choices” and the third “relieving suffering” pillar with “nurturing healing.” With this strengths-based terminology, we seek to shift the focus from reiterating the forces that drive the digital divide to exploring possible methods to cocreate value through digital inclusion. Interactions based on inclusive service practices can foster happiness.”;
BiblioA2022 Alkire L, RussellBennett R, Previte K, Fisk RP (2022) Enabling a service thinking mindset: practices for the global service ecosystem. URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-5818.htm Quotes: “Abstract – Purpose – Profound economic, social, political and environmental problems are cascading across modern civilization in the 21st century. Many of these problems resulted from the prevailing effects of rational economics focused on profit maximization. The purpose of this paper is to reframe the mindsets of scholars, firms and public policy decision-makers through enabling Service Thinking practices. Design/methodology/approach – Marketing, service and allied discipline literature are synthesized, and Raworth’s (2018) Doughnut Economics model is adapted to conceptualize and construct the Service Thinking framework. Findings – Service Thinking is defined as a just, mutualistic and human-centered mindset for creating and regenerating service systems that meet the needs of people and the living planet. Service Thinking is enabled by five practices (service empathy, service inclusion, service respect, service integrity and service courage). Practical implications – Actionable implications are presented for service ecosystem entities to uplift well- being, enhance sustainability and increase prosperity. Originality/value – Service Thinking practices are shaped by influencing forces (marketing, education and law/policy) and operant service ecosystem resources (motivation–opportunity–ability or MOA), which makes Service Thinking applicable to four economic entities in the service ecosystem: the household, the market, the state and the commons. Keywords Service thinking, Transformative service research, Mutualism, Human-centered, Service ecosystems, Practices Paper type Research paper”; “Raworth (2018), in response to these problems, proposed a “Doughnut” model of 21st century economics as an alternative to traditional economics (see Figure 1). Raworth’s (2018, p. 108) critique is that economic thinking is based on a flawed understanding of humanity: We wasted two hundred years staring at the wrong portrait of ourselves: Homo economicus, that solitary figure poised with money in his hand, calculator in his head, nature at his feet, and an insatiable appetite in his heart. It is time to redraw ourselves as people who thrive by connecting with each other and with this living home of ours that is not ours alone.”; “Specifically, through an extensive review of existing literature on service interactions (employee–customer, customer–customer, organization–customer, person to person, person/human nature and human–ecology) in business, marketing, service, psychology, sustainability and philosophy databases, our framework depicts five Service Thinking practices (service empathy, service inclusion, service respect, service courage and service integrity) for creating a “safe and just space for humanity” and outlines the influencing forces and operant resources needed to adopt Service Thinking.”; “We conceptualize Service Thinking as helping build a serving humanity logic and as the mindset needed to elevate HX by offering actionable guidelines for improving human well- being and planetary health within the global service ecosystem.”; “Using these three principles, we offer a new definition of Service Thinking as a just, mutualistic and human-centered mindset for creating and regenerating service systems that meet the needs of people and the living planet.”; “As shown in Figure 2, Service Thinking is based on a just, mutualistic, human-centered mindset, which is enabled by five practices of Service Thinking derived from a literature review: service empathy, service inclusion, service respect, service courage and service integrity. The Service Thinking mindset and practices shape influencing forces (marketing, education and law/policy) and operant service ecosystem resources in households, markets, commons and the state. Regenerative flow, which is represented by arrows, indicates how regulation shapes operant resources in the service ecosystem to support Service Thinking practices, which reciprocally shape regulation to circulate resources in the system.”; “Service thinking values the core contribution of households. Raworth (2018) presents households as a core economic contributor because they sustain the essentials of family and social life. Households constitute varying structures in societies involving groupings with no legal relationships such as cohabitation, voluntary social groups such as friends, adults with and without children, as well as family groups with personal and intimate relationships.”; “For example, organizations can show service courage by investing in social impact, not just economic impact.”; “Conclusion. The concept of Service Thinking was introduced as a just, mutualistic and human-centered mindset for creating and regenerating service systems that meet the needs of people and the living planet. Service Thinking applies Raworth’s (2018) Doughnut Economics model for reducing the shortfalls (the social foundation) of human needs and preventing overshoots (the ecological ceiling) and builds a Service Thinking framework for reducing suffering and improving human well-being, sustainability and prosperity in households, markets, commons and the state. “;